I believe I know the answer in this case but I would like to know for sure if I am correct.
I completed a fashion shoot for a clothing designer and one of the images she liked has a piece of artwork hanging on the wall. It is produced by a local artist and it is an original piece.

We rented out our investment banking offices to a movie company for a weekend shoot a few years ago. The first thing they did was carefully remove all of our paintings and other artwork and replaced it with their own collection of permitted work.

In the Nicole Kidman movie about her as a translator at the United Nations, the huge back piece artwork in the Security Council Chamber is an oil canvas mural painted by the Norwegian artist Per Krogh; in the movie, the entire painting had to be CGI'd to a replacement image because although they secured the rights to film in the actual security council chamber they could not get the copyright to reproduce the painting.

In certain countries it's worse; if you watch certain European reality TV shows they will blur out 100% of corporate logos...which is kind of stupid because you can blur the star on a Mercedes but its obviously still a Mercedes!

pawlowski6132 wrote:
I didn't read the NYT article (too lazy) but, seems completely assinine that you couldn't show a picture of the art which appears to be on public display in the first place.

Intellectual property laws are still applicable when things are on public display, whether it's artwork on the wall or music being played on the radio
- the copyright remains with the artist and you can't reproduce it without permission

Because the image on the wall is not the primary focus of the image and not being used directly to advertise anything, it's probably okay, but still a gray area. The biggest problem, of course, as has been mentioned, is that it's simply distracting. It's the kind of detail that should have been easily caught during the making of the photo and taken down. It's a really easy fix. This was done in two minutes with a trackpad and no stylus, but you get the idea.

For the record, I got a call last week from Vanguard Records in Santa Monica. They were using an image of mine as the basis for an illustrated CD cover, and the art director was kind enough to call and ask permission. We agreed on a price and have already received a check for that "use".

I agree, even though you may be able to get away with the incidental infringement (or the artist might not end up caring), I would shop it out simply because it is distracting and doesn't add anything to the photo.

papageno wrote:
Do you then need a property release from the maker of the cello, or the designer of the clothes or the maker of the candies on the shelf?

If you were doing nudes, do you need a release from the parents, as the creators?

In this case, the picture is one of many components in a larger picture. Would that alter the legalities?

Simple, the picture on the wall is a work of art that can be protected by copyright. Dresses, on the other hand, or clothing, for that matter, although they can be works of art, cannot be copyrighted (at least not in the U.S., Canada and most of Europe)...which is why knockoffs appear quickly and the designer has no recourse, just like car design...can't be copyrighted (and Hyundai copies Mercedes). The candles, on the other hand would be interpreted to be common everyday items. The cello is also a very common design that has been around for a very long time and its maker would have a very hard time defending a copyright on its design. Oh, and the human body, as artful as it may be, cannot be copyrighted...at least as far we know the original designer never claimed one.

Anyways, in most jurisdictions there is jurisprudence and if you want to argue hire a lawyer

Which is exactly why anyone producing a commercial work of art, such as a movie, photograph or painting will be very careful never to include any readily identifiable work of art without express written permission. The last thing they'll want is a lawyer's letter.

And if you think its silly, wait until someone uses one of your photographs without your permission.

It is NOT in a public place. They place it is hanging is a private place that may be open to the public, but it isn't a "public place". It is private property. If you're too "lazy" to read the link...,perhaps you should at least read the post by Chris Tylko.

FYI...Intellectual property laws are how professionals make their money. You should really learn how they work before calling them "freaking stupid".

FYI #2...You shouldn't use the word asinine unless you can at least spell it.

Some additional clarification for those who might think copyrights are too strict:

What we're talking about here is commercial work, i.e. photography (or movies) which will be used for commercial purposes. There is no problem in having copyrighted material in your image if you just use it for personal or editorial purposes.

However, the OP is absolutely right in his hunch; his photograph (whether or not he actually got paid) will be published to promote the dresses in a magazine which is a commercial venture and therefore publishing the picture with the image on the wall without the artist's permission will expose both the photographer and the magazine publisher, and anybody in between, to a potential claim.

You can take a night shot of the Bellagio fountain in Vegas (it is copyrighted), or almost any other building (architectural work of art) and you can do pretty well what you want with it...BUT that same image cannot be used commercially without permission (which you might get for a fee). Exceptionally, some works are public domain and can be used commercially without permission. i.e. in France, any structure that's of a certain age, I think 100 years, is considered public domain (like the old Louvre buildings, but NOT the pyramids, the Eiffel Tower, but NOT the night illuminations).

And if you still don't believe me, go to iStock and search "Bellagio Fountain" you will see all images are coded "Editorial use only".

So look, unless you're a commercial photographer don't worry about it. Just don't give your image of the Bellagio Fountain to your brother-in-law to promote his Motel Bellagio!